50 comments on “Isn’t this nice of one of the online warriors

  1. Dear Sanjay –

    Please file under Nobody Gives A Fuck and then try to find yourself a life.

    Yeah, we know you’re woke, but don’t really give a fuck about that either.

  2. You don’t actually have to say or do anything racially biased to demonstrate racial bias in the estimation of a social justice wanker.

    They won’t stop. There won’t be enough room in Forbes Town for the both of you.

  3. “Quite apart from the being 18 months too late to disturb Forbes it’s difficult to see what I’ve said that is racially biased, isn’t it?”

    No it isn’t. It’s not difficult at all. You used the Authoritarians’ “Group A Group B Trick”, which I think I must have mentioned about weekly for a year or two, so you damn well ought to be able to spot it by now!

  4. I wonder why Sanjay feels compelled to defend these child molesters of no ethnicity tho. It’s a real puzzler.

  5. May’s Deal Rejected

    For: 202
    Against: 432

    May to consider calling confidence vote under Fixed Term Parliament Act

    Corbyn calls no confidence vote

  6. I wonder why Sanjay feels compelled to defend these child molesters of no ethnicity tho. It’s a real puzzler.

    Being the furrow-browed, knuckle-dragging, Trump voting racist that I am, I’ll bet that with a name like Sanjay he probably ain’t got no ethnicity either.

  7. Tim Worstall:
    “No, not Muslim, nor Islam, nor all Asians nor, obviously enough, all of Pakistani background. That some of a group do something does not mean all of the group do.”

    NiV:
    “You used the Authoritarians’ ‘Group A Group B Trick’…”

    Another thread, another NiV lie.

  8. Sanjay is woke, so he has extraordinary powers of discernment that allow him to detect racism in homeopathic concentrations.

  9. @NiV

    Since you’ve been using the “hey, look over there a squirrel” argument for over a year on here to divert attention from gangs of child raping Pak Muslims, who gives a fuck what you think?

  10. Full of shite as ever NiV. Why don’t you go explain to some of the fucked over girls that its just a phase our dear guests are going through on the way to being absorbed into society.

  11. “Another thread, another NiV lie.”

    Hardly. First, the link is to a Tweet that conveniently omits that, and second, to admit that you know you’re pulling the “Group A Group B Trick”, and the attempted implication of even mentioning it is fallacious, does not in any way mean that you’re not pulling the “Group A Group B Trick”!

    There are *many* things about the suspects not being mentioned. Nobody mentioned that they’re all coffee drinkers, or that they all shop in supermarkets, or that they all own carpets. There were no headlines blazing out that “55 coffee-drinking men were arrested in Yorkshire today…” or anything of the sort. The number of facts about them not mentioned is infinite. But there is only one fact that Tim has specifically objected to them not mentioning, and we all know exactly why you wanted them to mention it. Because you know that despite *you* knowing that the “Group A Group B Trick” is logically invalid, even admitting as much, you still know that the world is filled with dribblingly stupid people who can’t comprehend that, and who nevertheless find the nonsense seductively persuasive, and that’s exactly what you intended to happen.

    Thus, you know *exactly* why ethnicity wasn’t mentioned. You know *exactly* what the “Group A Broup B Trick” is, and why mentioning ethnicity would constitute a use of it. So you know *exactly* why Tim making a point of them not using the “Group A Broup B Trick” in the particular way you all wanted them to was seen as racist/ethnicist.

    Freedom of belief and freedom of speech means you should have a perfect right to be racist/ethnicist and to say so, but for goodness sake have the self-honesty to stand up for your beliefs and admit it! Stand up for the principle that free speech means the freedom to say things other people detest! Don’t pretend you didn’t say it, or intend for it to be taken that way!

    Because to respond to an accusation of racism by trying to claim you didn’t and you’re not is to tacitly accept that it would be wrong if you were and you did. By which point you’ve already lost the moral argument. I have more respect for those who are at least open about it and proud of it – they may be dribblingly stupid authoritarian bastards but at least they’re not sneaky weasels about it.

  12. “the “Group A Group B Trick””

    Is that the one where Group B is gangs of child raping Pak Muslims and Group A isn’t?

    “the “Group A Broup B Trick””

    Is that the one where you think calling them Broup B instead will make us forget that they are gangs of child raping Pak Muslims?

  13. “Thus, you know *exactly* why ethnicity wasn’t mentioned…”

    Yes, politically correct insanity based on cultural cringing.

    “You know *exactly* what the “Group A Broup B Trick” is, and why mentioning ethnicity would constitute a use of it…”

    No it wouldn’t. Mentioning ethnicity (specifically cultural) would expose a pertinent factor in the motivation of certain types of rape gangs – no doubt (no fucking doubt) such as the one in question.

    The rest of your tedious drivel is your usual weak wank, which in this case you can fuck off and address to the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid – a bright man of Pakistani ethnic descent who can somehow point to the pertinent issue without accusing himself.

  14. “I, for one, am shocked that a guy who faps to ladyboy porn is also in favour of other types of degeneracy.”

    As everyone knows, raping girls is driven by the sexual desires of heterosexual men.

    But the headline doesn’t say “55 heterosexual men arrested in Yorkshire…”. It mysteriously fails to mention their sexuality, even though being heterosexual is obviously very relevant to the desire to rape girls. “A pertinent factor” even, as PJF would say. Whatever could they be trying to hide? “Men of no sexual orientation were reported today…”

    “Is that the one where Group B is gangs of child raping Pak Muslims and Group A isn’t?”

    Nope. Group B is child rapists.

    Almost 85% of offenders found guilty of sexual activity with a minor in England and Wales in 2011 were white. 3% were black and 4% were Asian and the rest were either listed as ‘other’ or unknown.

    But you desperately want to draw attention *away* from those 85% white child rapists, don’t you? I wonder why?

    Could it be that you don’t care?

  15. But you desperately want to draw attention *away* from those 85% white child rapists

    Cinema Paradiso contained less projection.

  16. NiV said:
    “As everyone knows, raping girls is driven by the sexual desires of heterosexual men.”

    But raping boys isn’t driven by the sexual desires of homosexual men? At least that’s what I keep being told by the Left whenever sex abuse by Catholic priests is mentioned.

  17. When I see the comment count above 20, it’s a fair bet that NiV has appeared. I do sometimes wonder if he isn’t an invention of Tim’s to drive his viewing and commenting figures higher?

  18. NiV

    The reason that many things are not mentioned, is because they are not relevant. Unless you think that coffee leads men to become rapists…? Maybe Tim might want to mention more than one aspect, but that’s no reason for him not to raise the one he did.

    And while you may think one should have freedom of belief and freedom of speech, the law says otherwise on many occasions, doesn’t it?

    And while it is true that there are rapists in every ethnicity, the distinctive factor in this case is surely the nature of the collaboration between the rapists and the characteristics of the victims. And it seems likely that that would have some basis in the culture of the perpetrators. Why do you insist that that is irrelevant?

  19. “The reason that many things are not mentioned, is because they are not relevant. Unless you think that coffee leads men to become rapists…?”

    Thanks! That’s exactly my point.

    “And while it is true that there are rapists in every ethnicity, the distinctive factor in this case is surely the nature of the collaboration between the rapists and the characteristics of the victims.”

    What’s so distinctive about it? There are lots of factors that one could consider. There are lots of victim characteristics.

    You could have picked out all the rape cases where the perpetrator used their job to access kids, or relied on family connections, or used threats, or used blackmail, or involved the rest of the child’s family, or was in a position of trust, or belonged to a supposedly especially virtuous public organisation that tried to cover up such scandals rather than prosecuting them (cough cough – Catholics). There are lots of ‘distinctive factors’ you could have picked. Why that one?

    Obviously, because it’s the one ‘distinctive factor’ that lets you associate ‘Group B’ with your selected ‘Group A’, the ones you really want to attack.

    ‘Group B’ that we all hate are ‘child rapists’. What are the ‘distinctive characteristics’ of the group as a whole? If you start looking for ways to pick out some for special attention and ignoring all the others, we’ll all suspect you’ve got something else in mind.

    “And while you may think one should have freedom of belief and freedom of speech, the law says otherwise on many occasions, doesn’t it?”

    And using the “Group A Group B Trick” doesn’t fool anyone as to your intentions (as the response to Tim’s Tweet above demonstrates), or excuse it in the eyes of the law.

  20. “Could it be that you don’t care?”
    Looks like more projection from NiV there…
    I can’t remember where I first read the idea that SJWs project, but – and I am sure this is not confirmation bias – it really REALLY is the case! See it over and over. Absolutely fascinating.

  21. I read Tim’s comment as a reflection of the way this story has been reported over the years. In a mistaken attempt to avoid racism (culturism?) and community breakdown these stories were suppressed in the MSM. Once the extent became known it caused a bigger backlash than would have been likely had it been reported openly from the start.

    Despite that we’re still getting the same attempts at downplaying these stories. It plays in to the hands of the likes of Tommy Robinson.

  22. NiV is back with his usual self-righteous justification as to why we shouldn’t point out that organised rape gangs are predominantly of Pakistani Muslim origin.

    As was pointed out, even the Home Sec acknowledges that there is a problem with importing people who have little or no regard for white girls and see them as trash or easy meat.

    I do hope NiV doesn’t have daughters.

  23. It’s interesting that NiV accuses Tim of “authoritarianism. There is something distinctive about these 55 men that might lead the ordinary person to form an opinion. We can presume it’s not a common interest in coffee drinking but might be their shared ethnicity. But NiV believes the ordinary person should be denied that information because they might form an opinion that he disapproves of.
    You can’t get more authoritarian than that.

  24. @NiV

    The problem with your statistics is that you are assuming the police prosecute men who have sex with a minor with equal vigour.
    Unfortunately that does not seem to be true.
    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/04/01/authorities-failing-grooming-gang-victims-telford-historic-abuse-scandal/
    “In one letter sent in 2016, a father was told the CPS would not be pursuing a case against his daughter’s abusers who raped her when she was 13 to 15 years old, according to documents seen by Sky News.

    The letter read: “The defence that was put forward in this case was that she willingly met the suspect and had consensual sexual intercourse with him.”
    13 year olds cannot have consensual sexual intercourse legally.

  25. Of course what was really egregious is the fact that the article referred to the alleged miscreants as men.

    It should simply have said, “55 people arrested …”

    But, thinking about it, perhaps even that is to prejudge the situation. How about, “55 arrested ….”?

  26. M’lud, f they self-identify as women can they even be charged with rape? Maybe some lesser sexual assault charge.

  27. You’re right Mr Lud. It could have been swans. It’s not as if swans don’t have form for this sort of thing. Or am I being judgemental & authoritarian? Cygnuphobic even?

  28. “Thanks! That’s exactly my point.”
    What, that their culture was not material? Seriously?

    “What’s so distinctive about it? There are lots of factors that one could consider. There are lots of victim characteristics.”

    What was distinctive was the collaboration and the choice of victims from another ethnicity.

    “You could have picked out all the rape cases where the perpetrator used their job to access kids, or relied on family connections, or used threats, or used blackmail, or involved the rest of the child’s family, or was in a position of trust, or belonged to a supposedly especially virtuous public organisation that tried to cover up such scandals rather than prosecuting them (cough cough – Catholics). There are lots of ‘distinctive factors’ you could have picked. Why that one?”

    Indeed one could. As indeed has been done. There are vast amounts of laws and rules addressing most of the groupings you raise. But the distinctive factors in this case were different, so have to be addressed. Don’t they?

  29. When it happened in the Catholic church there was indeed a discussion about why it was so prevelant among priests. Men who have to live with a bunch of other men and aren’t allowed to have sex with anything. Men who can’t marry but have access to vulnerable kids. It wasn’t wrong to question the rules of the catholic church and how they contributed to the issue. No one said well they all drink coffee too so maybe it’s that… because that would have been retarded.

    Why can’t a similar discussion be had when most of the gang rapists come from backward Muslim countries on the sub-continent?

  30. “I can’t remember where I first read the idea that SJWs project, but – and I am sure this is not confirmation bias – it really REALLY is the case! See it over and over. Absolutely fascinating.”

    Well, I’m not an SJW, and I’m not projecting, but I guess zero out of two ain’t half bad…

    “NiV is back with his usual self-righteous justification as to why we shouldn’t point out that organised rape gangs are predominantly of Pakistani Muslim origin.”

    Child rapists in the UK are predominantly white men. You don’t mention that. You don’t constantly bring the subject of white rapists up. You show no interest in them. You’re not proposing to fight them and their culture. You ignore all their many victims completely.

    I’m not saying you shouldn’t say it. I’m just saying that everyone recognises your racist motivations for doing so; that your intention is to sell a false narrative: that Pakistani Muslims are a major cause of child rape in this country, compared to all the white men. We can see what you’re doing.

    “As was pointed out, even the Home Sec acknowledges that there is a problem with importing people who have little or no regard for white girls and see them as trash or easy meat.”

    Yes, it’s called “lad culture”. It’s a pervasive problem in adolescent males. Ask the feminists.

    And it’s not just white girls who were victims.

    “There is something distinctive about these 55 men that might lead the ordinary person to form an opinion.”

    If the ordinary person is stupid, yes. Unfortunately, a lot of them are.

    “We can presume it’s not a common interest in coffee drinking but might be their shared ethnicity.”

    You’re presuming, based on your own prejudices.

    It might also be because they’re members of organised criminal vice gangs, gangsters tend to come from the poorer parts of society, and recent immigrants tend to be poor.

    Italian immigrants in America had ganger’s moll’s. The police often have a specialist ‘vice squad’ to chase them around. It’s a common enough stereotype.

    “But NiV believes the ordinary person should be denied that information because they might form an opinion that he disapproves of.”

    No, the problem is they may form a wrong opinion, that results in them targeting the wrong group. Also, as with all authoritarian propaganda techniques, the weapon is indiscriminate in who it targets, and if you allow it to pass into common usage then the SJWs will be able to use it on you.

    As I’ve already explained, the trick works as follows. You’ve got a Group A that you want to persecute/exclude, but they’ve done nothing to deserve it in the eyes of mainstream society and you’re not allowed to. So you find a Group B that everyone justly hates and despises, highlight the overlap between Group A and Group B, and then use that to argue for restrictions on Group A in the name of fighting Group B.

    It’s a very flexible technique. You can put *anyone* into the Group A slot – including *you*!

    It’s a favourite technique of the radical feminists, who of course put ‘men’ in the slot for Group A. But it’s also been deployed against gun owners, internet users, binge drinkers, and right-wingers generally. It can fool the stupid, and for someone already predisposed to hate Group A it seems to be genuinely convincing – such people seem almost incapable of recognising the fallacy. But once it’s been pointed out in a different subject, it’s easy to spot, and is 9 times out of 10 a sign of an authoritarian trying to justify persecuting some opposing group that the rest of society doesn’t agree they should.

    The correct answer is to apply your laws and constraints to Group B directly, and not accept any proxies or indirect correlations.

    I’ve got no problem with jailing child rapists – I don’t care what colour their skin is or to which imaginary friend (if any) they pray. If you can prove that individual person raped a child, you can throw the book at them, whether they’re brown, black, white, or green with purple stripes. But you don’t take any action against or apply any punishment to people who have *not* raped any children, but merely share some more visible characteristic with people who do.

    It’s a basic principle of non-authoritarian justice. Everyone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. People may be punished only for what they *have* done, not for things they might do, are thought more likely to do, or that people who look or sound a bit like them, or who share any other non-criminal characteristic, have done. That would be an incredibly bad precedent to set anywhere the SJWs can see you doing it!

  31. I do not see what is authoritarian about reporting facts.

    I do see, with Mr in Spain, that deliberately not reporting them in order to tow the state’s line on the ineffable wonders of mass immigration might be considered authoritarian.

  32. NiV… Your long-winded sophistry is, apart from being offensive, boring in the extreme. Why don’t you find another forum in which there may, just may, be people who give a toss..?

    Or, to put it another way, why don’t you just fuck off… And when you’ve done that, fuck off a bit more.

  33. “I do not see what is authoritarian about reporting facts.”

    Authoritarians never do.

    What’s authoritarian about it is that you are selecting *which* facts to report in order to persuade people towards a certain set of authoritarian policies, knowing that people are stupid and vulnerable to the association fallacy. The reason so many authoritarians fail to realise what they’re doing is that they’re stupid and fall into the same trap.

    It’s a fact that “Almost 85% of offenders found guilty of sexual activity with a minor in England and Wales in 2011 were white. 3% were black and 4% were Asian and the rest were either listed as ‘other’ or unknown.” Tell people this fact, and they’ll come to a totally different conclusion. But the authoritarians are not interested in doing so, because they don’t actually care about the rape of children, all they care about is Muslim immigrants. The only reason they mention it is to try to turn people against Group A, not because they really want to do something about Group B. Otherwise they’d just attack Group B and leave Group A out of it.

    Concern about “rape culture” is a major subject in radical feminism and social justice. The only difference is that for them Group A is ‘white heterosexual male Christian religious conservatives’ instead of ‘brown heterosexual male Muslim religious conservatives’. Apart from that, the techniques are identical.

    They don’t care either that most rapists are not members of their target group, nor that most of their target group are not rapists. All they’re interested in is bashing men – asserting that anyone who defends any sort of ‘masculine’ culture is thereby supporting rape. They don’t have to lie to do so. They’re just selective about what “facts” they report, so as to give the intended impression.

    “I do see, with Mr in Spain, that deliberately not reporting them in order to tow the state’s line on the ineffable wonders of mass immigration might be considered authoritarian.”

    I agree that not reporting them to fit in with political correctness is authoritarian. I’m suggesting that not reporting them to avoid looking like a thick racist prick and discrediting yourself is a much better reason.

    “NiV… Your long-winded sophistry is, apart from being offensive, boring in the extreme.”

    Rubbish. It’s so incredibly interesting that every time I participate the comment count rises like a rocket – that’s why Tim keeps posting on this topic. It’s clickbait. You all very much “give a toss” – that’s why you get so upset about it, and want so desperately to shut me up. You’re poor snowflake ears can’t stand to hear an opinion you disagree with being expressed.

    And since when has being “offensive” been a problem?!
    “Oh boo hoo! He offended me!”

    But you’re totally free to fuck off yourself, if you don’t like it.

  34. “Motives don’t change facts.”

    If you had different motives, you’d pick a different set of facts to highlight.


    You: “Your honour, witnesses saw the accused outside the block of flats on all six occasions that a burglary took place there.”

    Counsel for the defence: “But he lives there! You’re just trying to fit him up!”

    You: “Nevertheless, it is a *fact* that witnesses saw the accused outside the block of flats on all six occasions that a burglary took place there. Motives don’t change facts.”

  35. Bad example. You’d never get a conviction on the basis of that prosecution statement. And no one at the Bar would, yet, be stupid enough, quite, to make it.

    With nig-nogs raping and pillaging it is, or ought to be, man bites dog. Because there are fewer of them. So mass child rape gangs are proportionately more noteworthy. As in, was it a good idea to let these people in?

    And anyway, where are all the pale face child rape gangs?

    Look, I know you don’t get it, because you see no reason why we should dodge child rape gangs if children in Karachi don’t. Youre on the side of the pillagers.

    Oh, and you missed my point about motives.

    If they don’t change facts, and they don’t, then you’re as authoritarian for applauding their suppression as I am for promoting their promulgation.

    And as for the claim that authoritarian never see what is authoritarian about reporting facts… I mean, what?

    It’s authoritarian to report facts. I’m a tyrant for saying the earth is round?

    Why do I rise to the bait? That’s the only thing remaining of interest to me in these exchanges.

  36. “And no one at the Bar would, yet, be stupid enough, quite, to make it.”

    Apparently, not so.

    “With nig-nogs raping and pillaging it is, or ought to be, man bites dog.”

    Except it’s not – society mysteriously doesn’t agree with you on that. Problem, eh?

    As I said:

    As I’ve already explained, the trick works as follows. You’ve got a Group A that you want to persecute/exclude, but they’ve done nothing to deserve it in the eyes of mainstream society and you’re not allowed to.

    “So mass child rape gangs are proportionately more noteworthy. As in, was it a good idea to let these people in?”

    Who are “these people”? Rapists? Or Muslims?

    “You’ve got a Group A that you want to persecute/exclude”.

    “And anyway, where are all the pale face child rape gangs?”

    Good question. Those who can be bothered to check the official statistics say:

    High profile grooming cases can mean that professionals involved in child protection can look out for specific types and patterns of abuse more than others, according to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in 2012.

    It also said that in some cases organisations were more likely to record the ethnicity of a suspect if they were a particular ethnicity or nationality—for example if they were Asian.

    The data it had collected was based on the reports of victims. It found that 36% of perpetrators of child sexual exploitation in gangs or groups were white, 27% Asian, 16% black and 16% not disclosed.

    From another investigation, we also have:

    The latest data we have on this is from the 2013 CEOP study. It reports 57 cases of Type 1 group abuse in 2012, and police provided ethnicity data on 52 of these.

    Half of those Type 1 cases involved all-Asian groups. 21 per cent were all-white groups, and 17 per cent were groups containing multiple ethnicities.

    75 per cent of recorded Type 1 group abusers, who target victims based on their vulnerability, were Asian. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5 per cent of the UK’s population are Asian.

    17 per cent of Type 1 offenders were white, compared to 86 per cent of the UK population.

    There were six recorded cases of Type 2 group abuse.

    100 per cent of recorded Type 2 group offenders, who abuse children because of long-standing paedophilic interest, are white.

    Thus, yes, there are plenty of white abuser gangs around. So why don’t you know about them?

    One possibility, of course, is that nobody has any interest in exploting the victims of white rape gangs to fuel their little political campaign. You might be able to come up with an alternative explanation, but in any case it’s something you ought to be curious about.

    “Look, I know you don’t get it, because you see no reason why we should dodge child rape gangs if children in Karachi don’t. Youre on the side of the pillagers.”

    Wrong. I’m not on the side of the pillagers. I’m most certainly opposed to anyone raping children – whoever does it, whether in groups or individually.

    What I’m objecting to is trying to extend that opposition to people who *don’t* rape children, but who happen to share a particular characteristic with a minority of those who do.

    I’m not on the side of the pillagers, I’m on the side of the innocent, who are being mixed up with them. If the morality of that doesn’t move you, then consider it to be in your own self interest, because we *all* share characteristics with rapists, and we can *all* be attacked with the same tactics.

    “And as for the claim that authoritarian never see what is authoritarian about reporting facts… I mean, what?”

    I’ve explained the reasoning multiple times to you, the logic is not complex, and you still don’t get it. You never address the logic of the explanation, you just keep on repeating the same dumb argument as if I hadn’t explained exactly what was wrong with it. You said above “And no one at the Bar would, yet, be stupid enough, quite, to make it”, and yet you keep on repeating the same stupid argument yourself. Why?

    “Why do I rise to the bait? That’s the only thing remaining of interest to me in these exchanges.”

    I wonder, too.

  37. Half of those Type 1 cases involved all-Asian groups. 21 per cent were all-white groups, and 17 per cent were groups containing multiple ethnicities.
    75 per cent of recorded Type 1 group abusers, who target victims based on their vulnerability, were Asian. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5 per cent of the UK’s population are Asian.

    From which we can see a high, and highly disproportionate, significance of one ethnicity in certain types of rape gangs, thus making that ethnicity a relevant aspect to be reported on.

    To suggest otherwise indicates a motivation other than understanding and solving the problem.

  38. Why only “certain types”? Why only “gangs”?

    Because grooming gangs are the particular issue here.

    We know you want to dilute the discussion into general child sex abuse because that will distract from the over representation of “asians” (Pakistani muslims) in grooming gangs.

  39. “Because grooming gangs are the particular issue here.”

    And why are grooming gangs the particular issue here? Do other child rapes not matter?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.